Jump to content

User talk:Binksternet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kiodos (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 14 November 2018 (→‎Could I ask you a little help?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Binksternet Articles created Significant contributor Images Did you know Awards

Yes, I think you made a mistake

For the 60th anniversary of the Hot 100 (a few weeks ago), Billboard updated their list of all time top songs.

Since the previous list, the Queen song "Another One Bites the Dust" (which was previously ranked as the 40th all time song) has been overtaken by "Uptown Funk!" (now number 3), "Shape of You" (now number 9), and "Despacito (Remix)" (now number 33), so that "Another One Bites the Dust" falls to number 43. I noted that, and updated the reference to the current list of all time top songs.

I was merely trying to correct outdated information, and I don't really have any desire to press for this change - if there is some reason you want the wrong information there, I will simply forget about it. However, I really take offense at your calling this (properly sourced) edit "not constructive," (did you consider checking the reference?), and pointing me to the policies and guidelines. I have been making (ad hoc) edits longer than you have had a Wikipedia account (though I concede that the magnitude of your contributions is many times greater than my sporadic updates and fixes).

172.92.248.207 (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. You changed the URL to something wrong here, which I clicked on and found nothing to support your changes. You used the correct URL here, after your post above. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I need to apologize then, too. I made an error (it seems I forgot to delete an "s" which somehow ended up on the end) when updating the URL. The URL of the full top 600 (the top 100 of which are the same as the top 100 in the URL I used for the subsequent edit) should have been:
https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100-60th-anniversary
Of course, I should have tested the link after I made the change.
Will lean toward using the "Top 100" URL in the future (am not going to update all of them systematically, but will be looking through many of the Top 100 All-Time over the next few days), because it has a date associated with it.
Thanks for the reply. I didn't realize that I actually did make a mistake.

172.92.248.207 (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meryl Streep, Political views

Hello, You reverted an edit to the "Political views" section of Meryl Streep's page, which stated that Trump had allegedly mocked a reporter's disability. What the section currently says about the matter, "He mocked a disabled reporter," can easily be misconstrued as a conclusion that he mocked the reporter's disability, which is a yet unresolved and highly politicized controversy[1][2][3][4][5]. In order to make the page as clear and objective as possible, it would be best to keep the edit in question. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.latimes.com/85160455-157.html
  2. ^ http://www.newstandardpress.com/did-trump-mock-that-disability/
  3. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/09/meryl-streep-was-right-donald-trump-did-mock-a-disabled-reporter/?utm_term=.864b445f4e03
  4. ^ https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/fake-news-trump-did-not-mock-disabled-reporter-and-other-lies-from-the-left/
  5. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsaB3ynIZH4
There's no doubt that Trump mocked the man's disability. Ridiculous to even question it. What nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Knowles, I just posted five sources showing that the matter is debatable and why it is not ridiculous to question it. The conclusion that he certainly mocked the reporter's disability is not established or definite enough to consider truth and certainly not enough to put into this Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.22.174 (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Malarkey. The sources you posted describe Trump as certainly mocking the reporter, except for the opinion piece ("and other lies from the left") in investors.com, and the ridiculous video compilation created by Catholics 4 Trump. The opinion piece is not strong enough to contradict the WP:SECONDARY news sources such as LA Times and WaPo, and the video thing is a big zero, failing as it does to prove its point. Trump is clearly shown to be using very different gestures in the other videos, different from the bent wrist mocking of Kovaleski.
Basically, you are pushing a fringe viewpoint, which is completely unsuitable for the Streep biography. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources that I provided—except for the LA Times source, which is simply a clip and a description of the incident—have compelling reasoning defending their own positions, and there is such an abundance of online information about this very issue that it would be, frankly, ludicrous not to accept that there is a sufficient controversy so as to edit Streep's page. You cannot discount the value of the reasoning within some of these sources simply because of their right-leaning perspectives, and your personal and debatable opinions on the sources should not be the deciding factor of what is ultimately written in the Wikipedia article as truth. Additionally, whether a viewpoint is fringe or not should be irrelevant, because that is unrelated to the validity of the reasoning behind the controversy.

The fact of the matter is that there has been no conclusive proof for either side of the debate, so to explicitly say "He mocked a disabled reporter" on an issue as political, opinionated, and controversial as this not only is against Wikipedia's principle of neutrality and incongruous with other Wikipedia pages relating to other issues—including issues less controversial than this one and including Serge F. Kovaleski's page (which nowhere states that Trump did in fact mock Kovaleski's disability)—but it is also factually incorrect. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 04:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE viewpoints about Trump are not appropriate for Streep's biography. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Then I recant my incidental statement about fringe viewpoints, and I press my case. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a little over twenty-four hours since my last message to you. Since you have not responded, this is a notice that I will assume that you have no further resistance to my edit and I will reinstate it into the article in several hours unless you reply otherwise. 74.88.22.174 (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fringe. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but the Beat

Can you keep an eye of the page to persistent block evasion by User:MariaJaydHicky. 183.171.112.164 (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, already on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abimbola Fernandez Edits

Hi Binksternet,

I work for the Fernandez family personally and some of what you've written is disinformation & inflammatory information based off gossip websites that were paid to write what they did by Halima. If you can provide your email address I would be happy to provide you with the facts, which I assume is what wikipedia wants. I would also like to explain my edits.

President Dos Santos was asked by her father to be her Godfather upon her birth. This was talked about in a Portuguese article printed in 2014. [1]

The Chateau is spelled Chateau de Bois Feuillette not Des and the wiki page attached were the actual photos of the property which she now owns with her sister Atinuke. The Chateau sits on 24 Acres. [2] Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. The armani sweater etc not factual. Please also see article written by Nylon magazine on her collection - [3]

You must make it clear that no real drugs were used or made in ANY video by Abimbola. Abimbola does not do drugs. The video was a social experiment created by the record label SMH for shock value - to show the world the extremes new artist have to go through for attention if they aren't not practically naked. Insinuating the use and creation of real drugs is defamatory.

The voice over of Jonathan Hay disses Kim Kardashian at the end of Lipstick. Not Abimbola. This voiceover was added, after the song and video were made, without Abimbolas permission which prompted her immediate departure from the label.

Abimbola's Genre of music is not hip hop it is Pop

Halima is not legally married to Ambassador Fernandez. The family, 7 our of 8 of Ambassador Fernandez Children, is in a court battle against her in Belgium for estate property she illegally sold. The courts have ruled she is not the wife, is not entitled to anything from Fernandez Estate, and can no longer use the last name of Fernandez. Public information through the Belgian court system.


If you would like to verify any information please provide your email & I will be in touch.

Caiman323 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Caiman323[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cmjornal.pt/mais-cm/domingo/detalhe/a-estrela-pop-afilhada-de-eduardo-dos-santos?v=cb
  2. ^ https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Pontpoint_(60),_château_de_Bois-Feuillette.jpg
  3. ^ https://nylon.com/articles/abimbola-fernandez-interview
I'm interested in using the best sources, and I'm also interested in telling the reader the important points that are from published sources. It sounds like some of your above requests involve information that has not been published. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet

- Is there a better source then from Abimbola Fernandez herself? Some of the information you are posting such as "she grew up not knowing mundane chores like making her bed" is unverifiable by your "sources". Abimbola would like to speak with you herself to correct what you have written & address her leaving the label due to her not being aware of the Kim K diss, which if not clarified by you on wikipedia, can be detrimental to her career. Another example, on her fathers page you state her mother passed in Scotland. That is a flat out lie she passed away in New York. We would like readers to have the truth about Abimbola and her late well respected parents. Abimbola can be reached through her webpage www.AbimbolaFernandez.com or her assistant can be reached at info@AbimbolaFernandez.com if you will be so kind, please send an email in order to make the effort to correct what you've written. If not, we will have to have her PR reach out to wikipedia, make sure that everything written is factual, protect her page as well as report that you have deliberately refused to provide correct information when given the opportunity to.

Caiman323 (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Caiman323[reply]

You don't have to threaten me to get a response. There's a link to email at the left column.
If we use Abimbola herself as a source to insert facts that have never been published then we are violating the WP:No original research policy.
Where has it been published describing the reason that she left SMH Records?
The bit about mundane chores is from an interview published somewhere online... I will try to find it. I had a lot of tabs open with a lot of sources in front of me, so some of the information I saw may be accidentally blended with other information.
Do you have a reliable published source saying that a court determined Halima never married Deinde Fernandez? That would be useful. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post article has the Armani sweater in it. So it's from a published source. But it's not critically important, and can easily be removed.
Regarding Dos Santos as godfather, I would want to see something written about that this relationship was important, describing something that Dos Santos did for Abimbola in his role as godfather. Otherwise it seems like trivia. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Again I must say to you Binksternet

You must make it clear that no real narcotics were used or made during the video for Lets take it naked. You deliberately edited the page to delete any indication that those are not real.

Per the wiki guidelines Im presenting you with a publication regarding President Dos Santos and his relationship with Abimbola. I referenced this in my first message to you. http://www.cmjornal.pt/mais-cm/domingo/detalhe/a-estrela-pop-afilhada-de-eduardo-dos-santos?v=cb. You deciding what publication is "trivial" or not shows obvious biased to this page. Please see the article I just linked above. This is not trivial this is by wiki community guidelines a published article.

Caiman323 (talk) 01:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Caiman323[reply]

I have never seen a published source saying that Abimbola Fernandez does or does not use drugs. I'm sure we're both on the same side here, in wanting the reader to get the impression that the scene in the video is not representative of what she does for fun.
The wording I used said that the video scenes were fictional. That means everything depicted in them is fictional, including the pregnant belly and the drugs and Russian Roulette game. So it's already clear that the drugs are fake. Your insertion was poor English, with too much emphasis on that part.
Regarding Santos, the question is still on the table: what did Santos do for Abimbola Fernandez by way of being her godfather? Or was it just an honorary connection, with no real ramifications? Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Grenade logo.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I do know what you mean by block evasion, but would you please stop being a robot, and stop reverting such changes [1] [2], no matter the excuses? Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your good advice. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basic principles

Inline links to articles in foreign languages are not useful and should not be used. And every single other item in the page has a relevant English language encyclopedia article to link to. What exactly is your thinking in adding items with no English language article? Did you even realise that you were adding links to German pages? 51.7.23.71 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and what a surprise, you've reverted again, desperate to edit war even after leaving me a stupid warning about edit warring. You didn't bother to leave an edit summary. See WP:REVEXP. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oho! So you are stalking my edits now as well! Don't violate core policies of the encyclopaedia, no matter how much fun you find it to provocatively and pointlessly revert edits. 51.7.23.71 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your removals are disruptive at multiple articles. There is no policy against links to the German language in this, the English-language version of Wikipedia. The hard-and-fast policy expressed at WP:NONENG is that sources from other languages are allowed. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen HarveyCarter socks from Hemel Hempstead? Acroterion (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the UK IP system being known for poor geolocation, I don't think this guy is HarveyCarter, who disrupts mostly from Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk. The style of 51.7.23.71 is different. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The style seemed a little different to me too, but I thought I'd ask, given proximity of the geolocation and since you're better at spotting HC socks. Acroterion (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Acroterion, it's obvious that this IP editor is no newcomer, using shortcuts and wikilawyering, probably angry at Wikipedia for past treatment. I think we are dealing with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, apparently blocked last week by Favonian at the IP 51.7.34.192, also from Hemel Hempstead. There are likely more suspicious IPs that can be found but this one seems conclusive. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very well could be. The cantankerous style fits, and I have blocked two London-area IPs today for doing repeat performances at Joseph Conrad's career at sea, a favorite haunt of BKFIP. Favonian (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they're not new, and I was pondering who it might be. I'm not that familiar with BKFIP. I'll do some homework for repeat performances. Acroterion (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide topics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that you were warned about this just over a year ago, but continuing to edit war in the topic is disruptive. The topic is under 1RR, and the expectation is that when content has been disputed (especially with significant talk page discussion) that editors not try to edit war that change back in like you did here. Please remember to self-revert that if someone else doesn't get around to fixing it soon. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should expect that you would not remove well-cited information, the citations from scholarly works, the information exceedingly relevant. Which one of us is causing the disruption? Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source and doesn't have consensus on the talk page either. Either way, you have been notified that you are in violation of the expectations 1RR. Please do not ignore the discretionary sanctions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in here, I feel the need to point out that making a single revert does not constitute a 1RR violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I am reminded (above) that I made two reverts within a year. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, it is considered WP:GAMING of 1RR in this case because the new content had already been removed. Arbs were very clear at the GMO case that trying to edit war just-removed content back in without gaining consensus (especially when the talk page made it obvious there was none) would be considered as such. Following WP:BRD should not be a surprise to anyone who's edited in this topic significantly or those who have run into edit warring sanctions in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's "considered" that by you, but not by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future bass

Hey Binksternet, I've seen there was an unreliable reference added to the page by GenericGuy10 a number of times and some other few edits have been added to the page since, could you please keep a look out for these edits if that's okay with you. Sorry for the inconvenience, just trying to keep you up to date with few articles that need to be checked now-and-then. 101.165.0.161 (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to add and say that the cleanup made appears to be in no way helpful. I am not going to make a follow-up edit to it, but I will ask to note the following things regarding the artist list affected by this edit:
  • At Talk:Deadmau5#Requested move 17 August 2018, a consensus was made to remove all stylisation preferences from artists’ stage names. The cleanup to the list was made against this consensus.
  • This same edit removed the {{div col}} template used to shorten the visual length of the page. Why?
  • Much of the artists restored to the list don’t even have their own Wikipedia pages, but rather redirect to other subjects; they should not be listed.
I hope a follow-up edit can be made to address these issues. 66.87.148.148 (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You are the vandal, not me. Everything in scene (subculture)#Latin America was reliably sourced, but you removed it for no reason. You also removed other paragraphs that were cited, such as the variations to the subculture's name and its decline in the mid 2010s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.224.228 (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution has lots of problems with poor sourcing, synthesis of sources, and original research. For instance, this source is self-published, and therefor unreliable. Other places you make statements about A, B and C, but the cited source might only talk about C. And there are too many images in your version, images that you decided were indicative or significant to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles

Sorry, but I don't see vandalism. Unexplained changes, sure, but vandalism, no. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I judged it vandalism when I saw that the area was changed from 1,302 to 1.3 km2. Binksternet (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, there's a larger pattern of vandalism from some IPs listed below, all changing numbers in city articles, all from the same general area. Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. I left a note on the most recent one--possibly completely useless, but who knows. Will you keep me posted? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, thanks. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious to an expert in the field

Regarding obvious to an expert in the field, and as such does not need explicit sourcing: This is contrary to WP:V. "Obvious to an expert in the field" does not remove the requirement to provide citations. Bright☀ 10:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD notice

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Binksternet-related trolling --Guy Macon (talk)

UK IP Hopper

Hi, Ignore the "Kent" location. Geolocation by IP address is not enabled here in the UK. The Kent location will be the location of a BT base. Sadly BT always use dynamic addresses, and they have a big customer base. This guy is somewhere in the UK, and can get a whole variety of IP addresses in various different IP ranges. Blocking will never stop this guy - he knows how to beat the system. If you see specific pages he likes, let me know to add some protection. Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to be a lot of pages. A lot. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Kent result in whatsmyipaddress.com is consistent for this vandal, so it doesn't matter to me where he is actually editing from. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It probably consistent for way over a million homes... Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a list of articles this vandal has visited more than twice in the last year. Note that the pattern of disruption can be traced back to 2014. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronhjones, this guy is back in action directly following the expiration of a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/2A00:23C5:1187:9D00:0:0:0:0/64 which had been blocked for three months ending right now. Your observation that this guy cannot be stopped by blocks is somewhat disproved by his immediate resumption of disruption after the block ended. Thus, a block has been demonstrated to stop him. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well let's force the issue and see what transpires :-) Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're all right. :)
Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is still on BT, it's down as a static address - https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/2a00:23c5:1187:9d00:e9f3:40e5:88c3:1fe1 - maybe he has changed his package/connection type with BT - plenty of people moving from ADSL2+ to FTTC, it's BT's big drive at present, it might be a bonus for us. Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Would you be able to help out with this stub? I came across it checking the contribs of an IP vandal. Cheers - wolf 16:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the news is about his death. I can't find anything from before that. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion of the Christ

About your references of me adding original research or novel syntheses of published material. I really don't get it! I mean: you don't have to do any research! It's right there for everyone to see: only two languages. Pretty much like the rest... You just need to open the Bible and the other book... There is no research to be done! Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlinux (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a policy against original research, which may be seen at WP:No original research. Original research is perfectly normal and expected from a reporter or author or writer, but not from Wikipedia editors. You apparently examined the film and then re-examined the Bible to make a comparison between the film and the Bible. That's original research.
I found a book edited by Kathleen E. Corley and Robert L. Webb, titled Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, in which the authors say that the titulus held "more than one languages", the number not specified, nor the languages. The authors do not say that Greek was present on the titulus of Jesus in any version of the New Testament. Do you have a reliable source saying that Gibson left off the Greek but Greek was certainly present in the original? Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering the titulus case specifically, the Bible states at John 20, 20 that "it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin" ( https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A20&version=KJV ) and the movie... well it's just there! I don't think we need a journalist to state it. This is a passage very common to be heard on church, so it's not that you actually have to research about it. If you go to the church you probably know it and if you see the movie and know the languages, you know about it. It's "just there" for us to see... (sorry, i really can't came up with anything else! I mean: it's "there". You don't have to research about it.)
Almost the same thing applies to the rooster case. It's a well known passage - probably as known as the one above and read at the same time - and the Bible does say the cock crew ( John 18,27 ). In this case, however, i do agree that the interpretation given in the The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ did made me think in the fact that the Bible does not say the cock is heard just that it does crew... But, even that is something that i believe someone could think of without the need to read the The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. That's why i really think it's not something you need to justify with references to a journalist's article that will states the obvious. I don't even think a journalist would write an article about this unless he could add some explanations to it because he would be just stating the obvious.. I'm really sorry, i really don't understand or see the need for references in this case. And it will probably never be any other references for this "fact" because there is no need to write about it. Merlinux —Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same page here with the truth of your observation. The reason I'm asking for a WP:SECONDARY source supporting it is that your observation is not proved to be of wider importance until a third party reliable source has published something about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i understand your request but i can't fulfill it. I've read somewhere about the INRI sign but i don't rememeber where and i don't believe it would fit as a "reliable source" anyway. As i mentioned before, i don't believe it will ever be an article about it. But still what brought many of the viewers to the movie, i believe, was the supposed "truth-to-the-gospels" characteristic. And those viewers will appreciate knowing these details. The roaster, for example is one of those moments everyone is hoping to hear and it just doesn't get heard. So, all in all, while i do believe these informations are important and that they should be on the article, I'll have to stand down. This is again one of those cases that makes me contribute less and less to Wikipedia. It's nothing personal, naturally. I understand your point but before i make any edits i always do make sure the information I'm adding is truth, valid and, from my point of view, valuable. Anyway, thank you for your time and for being polite :) Merlinux

Blonde

Would you like to weigh in this RfC regarding Blonde should be Frank Ocean's third studio album or his second. Only if you interested. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Hit Wonders

I was removing all the non one hit wonders from the list because I have done research over the years and was giving the list a more accurate one hit wonders list. Songs like Obsession and Our House were not One Hit Wonders even though sometimes Our House gets thought of as a One Hit Wonder. Sites like YouTube have people that do listings of songs that were one hit wonders and some of the songs they pick are not One Hit Wonders. Wikipedia could be responsible for this and putting non one hit wonders on the list is going to cause people to put videos of songs that are not One Hit Wonders on a One Hit Wonders video. It's like calling Bohemian Rhapsody a One Hit Wonder and not doing research on the band that made it. Wikipedia needs an accurate list and not a list of songs that were thought of as One Hit Wonders before research was done.104.229.83.51 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikipedia is intended to be a summary of published knowledge, not a place for bringing your personal (unpublished) research. Please read the policy about WP:No original research.
The article about one-hit wonders of the US has serveral inclusion criteria discussions on the talk page: Talk:List of one-hit wonders in the United States. The consensus of the involved editors is to list all the one-hit wonders that have been named by two or more reliable sources reporting on music in the US. Your changes have been reverted because you are not conforming to this criteria. Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking there should be a listing of what people think are One Hit Wonders, but are really not. So that way the ones that are One Hit Wonders are on the correct listing and separate from the ones that people think are One Hit Wonders and are not. Otherwise, the songs that are not One Hit Wonders are going to be believed by people as One Hit Wonders without doing research. The reason why it was wrong for you to revert the page was because I have done my research when it comes to One Hit Wonders. VH1 didn't always do their research when it came to One Hit Wonders. I spotted some songs that weren't One Hit Wonders on some VH1 lists.
Here is a list of all the Non One Hit Wonders from the 80s that you decided to keep as One Hit Wonders (You should check these songs out for yourself): A-Ha's Take On Me, Madness's Our House, A Flock of Seagulls's A Ran (So Far Away), Chris DeBurgh's The Lady in Red, Dead or Alice's You Spin Me Round (Like a Record), Animotion's Obsession, Martika's Toy Soldiers, Rockwell's Somebody's Watching Me, Matthew Wilder's Break My Stride, Swing Out Sister's Breakout, and Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny (I didn't know this wasn't a One Hit Wonder until I did research). Definition of One Hit Wonder: One Top 40 Hit (Billboard Top 100)!
The person that originally made that list did NOT do enough research. I was correcting that person's mistakes. That is all I have to say. If you want to, you can check all of the songs to make sure they are One Hit Wonders. I am not going to change the list. I am just being nice and making things accurate when it comes to music. I am going to leave the list alone and you can find out if my changes originally were the right changes by doing research. Sorry that I didn't convince you that I was right about making certain changes. 104.229.83.51 (talk) 21:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm sorry I did not get through to you that you cannot share your research on Wikipedia. Don't even try – it's not negotiable. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up. I guess the non One Hit Wonders are going to be thought of forever as One Hit Wonders because we can't have the non One Hit Wonders on a different list (something like "Songs Listed by Publications as One Hit Wonders, But Are Not"). That is what I think would improve the page. That is what I was talking about on your talk page. I guess that won't happen. Honestly, I think the page is a mess and not neutral. I think the page needs to be improved. However, you think my edits were wrong and the page is neutral without my edits. I disagree! I think Wikipedia should be accurate, even without publications. Wikipedia shouldn't always rely on publications for facts, because some of those publications are wrong. However, I am not going to keep complaining about the list. I just think that the page needs to be improved. That is my opinion! 104.229.83.51 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, My research is not from original research. My research is thru publications by Billboard. Billboard even has a website that can check all artists and their chart history. These are Publications, am I right? 104.229.83.51 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can start a new list of purely Billboard-based entries. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen

Are you a fan of Queen? I saw some Queen posts on your page. Stco23 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy many of their songs, but I would not say I am "fanatic" about the band. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a problem with an IP on the Bohemian Rhapsody film page. Just to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodericksilly (talk • contribs)
Yes, I have seen that. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you a little help?

Hi Michael, I'm KIODOS from Germany. I started a few days ago to create an article by an Italian artist, Matthew S (Winner of MTV new generation in Italy). I created the article and seeing your experience and your many articles(They are created very well, congratulations) I wondered if you could see it and tell me if there are changes to be made. I hope you can help me! Congratulations again for your user profile and for your articles!

All the best, Kiodos

I will take a look soon. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Binksternet! I appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiodos (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Binksternet ! did you check my article? All the best, --Kiodos (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You marked my ACCURATE edits to the doobie brothers' page as vandalism??

Do you even know what you're talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1104:3200:D02:517F:645B:FA15 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some examples from your editing history.

Your assistance, please?

Hi, Bink - I was hoping you could get me on the trail to finding RS so I can create an article for Bruce Babcock. I doubt this article will cut the mustard, and I doubt IMDb will either. He's got 2 Emmy's to his credit and 8 noms, so he passes WP:GNG but I was hoping for some RS that weren't so "industry". Ping when you respond, please? Atsme✍🏻📧 21:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about BMI and CSU Northridge Magazine? I found other websites that were self-published, and plenty of mentions in passing where the larger topic is Emmy noms or wins. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think those two plus the few I've found should be sufficient. Thank you for the prompt reply!! Atsme✍🏻📧 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&oldid=868858766"